On 12/8/2013 1:46 AM, Ralf Bader wrote: > fom wrote: > >> On 12/7/2013 6:40 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <email@example.com>, >>> WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7 Dec. 1873, exactly 140 years ago, Cantor wrote to Dedekind: >>>> Man nehme an, es kÃ¶nnten alle positiven Zahlen ? < 1 in die Reihe >>>> gebracht werden : >>>> >>>> Here he said: assume that all positive reals < 1 could be in a sequence. >>> >>> This is obviously only the beginning statement of an argument from which >>> WM has clearly left the rest of out. >>> >>> The conclusion of that argument is amost certainly that no such sequence >>> can exist, so one can see why WM would want to leave it out. >>> >> >> He had just been correcting me. >> >> He really does know what Cantor wrote. > > It is easy enough to know what Cantor wrote in the sense of being able to > list Cantor's words in the order in which they appear in Cantor's papers so > that even Mückenheim may accomplish this. > Cantor's collected works can be obtained here: > http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/toc/?PPN=PPN237853094 > > If you want to imply that Mückenheim has some kind of understanding of what > Cantor wrote, you are provably wrong. In case you should insist on such a > provably wrong assertion, this does not make the assertion right but says > something about your own understanding of mathematics. >
Now you are the one with an agenda. What I stated is merely that WM knows what Cantor wrote.
Thank you for the link. It happens to be useless to me because of my poor linguistic skills. But, it is nice to know that it is there.
For the record, however, it seems that when I do err WM provides a correction with enough speed as to indicate that he has actually read many of the references. That could be illusory. It also does not say anything about his interpretations or even their quality with respect to the mathematical practices most sympathetic toward his statements.